Re: West Coast Mainline Deal Ditched : Fri Oct 12, 2012 11:42 am  

cod'ead wrote:

That's not consumer choice, that's being forced into multi-modal commuting. They could always stay at home and claim benefits I suppose

Is here a single modal commuting using rail? Other than for people who live in one train station and work in another?

Re: West Coast Mainline Deal Ditched : Fri Oct 12, 2012 11:46 am  

cod'ead wrote:

Rail infrastructure has, since privatisation, always been in the hands of a separate provider. Unfortunately the privately owned provider was so piss-poor at operating and managing that service (including being responsible for a number of deaths), that the state had to relieve them of their responsibilities and take it back into public ownership.

I know. I did an ITIL course with a guy working for that part (was it Railtrack?) and their business processes and operating method were laughable, and not suited to a standalone private enterprise at all.
That was the real mistake, separating and selling off that part of the network. That made no more sense than selling off the motorway network would - although both can allow scope for privately owned and ran elements, whether a toll road or the DIRFT facilities.

Re: West Coast Mainline Deal Ditched : Fri Oct 12, 2012 11:48 am  

DaveO wrote:

That is a pretty glib statement IMO. I don't think anyone in the 50's or 60's objected to nationalised industries based on some ideological stance of about how much of our life should be provided by the state. They may have objected on other grounds but talk of a "small state" was not something I can ever recall being a hot topic.

The big state v small state debate is a manufactured one IMO manufactured by those who want a small state. They make it sound as if there is something inherently wrong with the state running virtually anything at a philosophical or moral level ignoring the practicalities. I think people in the UK are far more pragmatic and a lot less dogmatic over this than our American cousins and I think it is a real shame such dogma has found its way into the debate in this country as it moves it away from the simple economics and practicalities of the situation and turns it into an ideological debate instead.

Fair enough. I'd consider it the prime difference between the two main political parties we have though. Neither party has said the whole country should be at an extreme end of that spectrum, nor suggested that there is something inherently wrong with the state running virtually anything, nor has any posted on this board.

Re: West Coast Mainline Deal Ditched : Fri Oct 12, 2012 11:59 am  

DaveO wrote:

The big state v small state debate is a manufactured one IMO manufactured by those who want a small state. They make it sound as if there is something inherently wrong with the state running virtually anything at a philosophical or moral level ignoring the practicalities. I think people in the UK are far more pragmatic and a lot less dogmatic over this than our American cousins and I think it is a real shame such dogma has found its way into the debate in this country as it moves it away from the simple economics and practicalities of the situation and turns it into an ideological debate instead.

Having corresponded with Republicans in this past year I can only be thankful that we haven't gone that far yet, a few politicians may want to go that far but I just hope that the population in general never wants to reach a position where you may as well not have a government at all because you've removed so much of the work that a government is supposed to be doing that its largely ineffective at taking care of its population - which is surely the only reason that we need a government ?

We had the perfect Republican situation a few hundred years ago in this country, a country divided into large estates where most of the population just got on with life, cared for themselves, worked for themselves, didn't pay any tax unless threatened with a sword and then died in their twenties - and a handfull of others owned everything.

Re: West Coast Mainline Deal Ditched : Fri Oct 12, 2012 12:17 pm  

Richie wrote:

Fair enough. I'd consider it the prime difference between the two main political parties we have though. Neither party has said the whole country should be at an extreme end of that spectrum, nor suggested that there is something inherently wrong with the state running virtually anything, nor has any posted on this board.

1) Public ownership has not been a core Labour principle since T Blair got rid of Clause 4.

2) This government is going down one particular route – privatising the NHS, the police, probation services and absolutely anything else that it can, which is itself an extreme continuation of what has been occurring for 30 odd years.

Re: West Coast Mainline Deal Ditched : Fri Oct 12, 2012 12:24 pm  

Mintball wrote:

2) This government is going down one particular route – privatising the NHS, the police, probation services and absolutely anything else that it can, which is itself an extreme continuation of what has been occurring for 30 odd years.

Yep, don't forget education though. The Holy Trinity of health, education and law & order are being privatised.

Re: West Coast Mainline Deal Ditched : Fri Oct 12, 2012 12:42 pm  

Mintball wrote:

1) Public ownership has not been a core Labour principle since T Blair got rid of Clause 4.

2) This government is going down one particular route – privatising the NHS, the police, probation services and absolutely anything else that it can, which is itself an extreme continuation of what has been occurring for 30 odd years.

It's just degrees along the scale Minty, neither party is at the extreme end.
Labour seemed less aggressive in privatising gov ran enterprises than the Conservatives. This gov is not privatising everything.

Re: West Coast Mainline Deal Ditched : Fri Oct 12, 2012 12:48 pm  

Richie wrote:

It's just degrees along the scale Minty, neither party is at the extreme end.
Labour seemed less aggressive in privatising gov ran enterprises than the Conservatives. This gov is not privatising everything.

Labour continued with the policies of the previous Conservative governments, post 1979 (which even Tory grandee Harold MacMillan condemned as "selling the family silver"). To put it colloquially, they also laid the bridge that is enabling this coalition to do what they're doing so quickly.

And given just what they are privatising, there will be very little left unprivatised. You have, for instance, councils trying to privatise absolutely every service (including, but not limited to, so-called 'easy councils').

It's not degrees, Richie: this really is an attempt to sell off as much as is possible.

And yes – I'd forgotten education.

[DaveO]

Re: West Coast Mainline Deal Ditched : Fri Oct 12, 2012 2:25 pm  

Here is an interesting article on the relative costs of state v private ownership of the railways: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/oct/11/railway-trains-subsidy-state-private

Here is an interesting article on the relative costs of state v private ownership of the railways: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/oct/11/railway-trains-subsidy-state-private

Re: West Coast Mainline Deal Ditched : Mon Oct 15, 2012 5:22 pm  

Is it just me, or does todays fudge on the West Coast Line have 'Bradford Bulls Licence' writ large upon it?